Performance ReportCat Product Information

For Dealer Sales Personnel

This document supplements information in the Specalog. Marketing content will be available only on secured dealer extranets and by accessing the PDF in the Electronic Sales Library.

Cat 993K vs. Komatsu WA900-3

July 2010

2Study Purpose

Study Dates

Field Data By

Location

Written By

Weather Conditions

Tested Units

Material

Scale System

Calibration Date

Business Unit

The purpose of the study was to conduct economic analysis of current fl eet, as well as determine the performance differences between the Cat 993K and the Komatsu WA900-3 wheel loaders, identify areas of opportunity and to verify total production, fuel burn and machine availability.

April 12 15, 2010

Randy Aneloski Cat Global MiningTom Grill Cat QSIDReed Garretts Tucson Proving GroundsJamie Wintzel Cat Global MiningBill Olsen Tinaja Hills DACKent Clifton Cat Global Mining

Gold mine in Nevada, USA. Altitude was approximately 1280 m (4,200 ft).

Randy Aneloski CGM

Temperatures ranged from 1 C to 21 C (35 F to 70 F). Dry Conditions.

Cat 993K (Mine Owned fi eld follow)Komatsu WA900-3 (Mine Owned)

Gold ore ranging in density between 971.03 1040.4 kg/m (2,800 3,000 lb/yd). A study was also done in crushed ore which had an average density of 1079.2 kg/m (3,112 lb/yd).

The scale system used for this test was the Cat THDAC set of Transcale AS300 weigh system.

March 2009

This study was completed by Cat Global Mining with assistance from QSID, Cashman Equipment and Cat Product Development COE.

3Key Findings

Executive Summary

The Komatsu WA900-3 was inoperable with a hydraulic system problem the entire time that we were on site. Because of that we were not able to get any production or fuel data from that loader.

The Cat 993K was tested in three separate segments. Production and fuel was measured in each segment. The same customers operator was used for all segments.

The Cat 993K 6 pass loaded the 785 trucks to weights ranging between 129.8 144 tonnes (143.1 158.7 tons).

The 993K bucket payloads ranged between 21.7 24 tonnes (23.9 26.5 tons).

Measured loader production ranged between 2237.2 2676.8 tonnes/hr (2,466.1 2,950.7 tons/hr).

Extrapolated production using constant truck exchange time ranged between 2489.2 2702.9 tonnes/hr (2,743.9 2,979.4 tons/hr).

993K fuel consumption ranged between 142.7 158.6 l/hr (37.7 41.9 gal/hr).

993K cycles averaged between 28.02 28.32 seconds.

4Machine Comparison

Model 993K High Lift WA900-3 High LiftSerial Number LWA00426 n/aUnit Number n/a n/aHours 20,800 18,000Tires

Front Bridgestone 50/65-51 62PR L5 Bridgestone 45/65-45 58PR L5Rear Bridgestone 50/65-51 62PR L5 Bridgestone 45/65-45 58PR L5

Year Manufactured 2006 2006Engine

Model C32 ACERT Tier 2Manufacturer Caterpillar CumminsRated Engine RPM 1900Displacement 32.1 L (1,959 in3)Cylinders 12 12Hp Rated 708 kW (950 hp)Hp/L 29.4 hp/L

Transmission Cat KomatsuForward Gears 3 3Reverse Gears 3 3Top Speed 22.1 km/h (13.7 mph) CD 28 km/h (17.4 mph)

Machine Weight as Confi gured

Bucket High Abrasion Spade RockBucket Capacity SAE 2:1 13 m3 (17 yd3) SAE 2:1 13 m3 (17 yd3)Additional Options Fire Suppression ASR, ASRC, Exhaust BrakeSpec Sheet Weight Estimate 135 586 kg (298,968 lb) 107 350 kg (236,670 lb)

Scale Actual 137 212 kg (302,500 lb) n/a

Fuel Level 100% n/a

5Test Procedure

Fuel Consumption and Measurement

For the purpose of creating consistent and accurate data the Cat 993K was measured using the same operator and the study team utilized the same cycle time taker. Fuel system data was gathered using the TPG Engineer for consistency.

Fuel consumption data was gathered using Cat day tank system. This system was plumbed into each loaders factory fuel system and then isolated from the main tank so that the loader would burn only fuel from the day tank as well as return un-burnt fuel to the day tank. The tank was then weighed before and after the testing period and the difference between the beginning and ending weight was correlated to the amount of fuel burnt during the test. Temperature measurements were also gathered and used to calculate fuel expansion.

6Truck payload information was collected using portable scale system from Tinaja Hills, the certifi ed Transcale AS300. In order to ensure the accuracy of the scale system the earthen pads that the scales rest on were constructed to be level within one tenth of a foot. These measurements were checked during the construction of the pads as well as after the scales were set using a tripod mounted laser and grade rod. The same method and accuracy was applied to the ramps leading to the scale pads.

Throughout the duration of the study the scale pads and ramps were checked to ensure they remained level. This was done using both the laser and grade rod and also by completing a Site Level Test. During a Site Level Test a loaded haul truck is weighed one axle at a time in the usual manner and then re-weighed in the opposite direction. The weight is recorded and must match within 0.5%.

Payload Measurement

7During the study all loader cycle times were recorded. A dedicated cycle timing program was used to gather all study loader cycle times and all clocks were set to assure proper matching between payloads, truck loads and loader cycles.

Productivity and Fuel Results Summaries by StudySegment #1

The 993K was operated in light density ore by the customers operator. The operator was consistently 6 pass loading Cat 785 Trucks. Material was well shot, free fl owing and very consistent in fracture size. The operator was very effi cient and fl uid in his movements. The loading fl oor was hard packed and fl at.

Excellent truck queuing and spotting was observed consistently. This operation in the loading area should be considered World Class.

Cycle Times

Test Results

8Test Results (continued)Cycle Segment Cycle time minutes

Load/Dig 0.114Travel Loaded 0.161Dump 0.075Travel Empty 0.12Total 0.47

Truck LoadingAverage Bucket Payload Tonnes (Tons) 21.65 (23.86)Average Truck Payload Tonnes (Tons) 129.85 (143.14)Truck Exchange Time Minutes 0.79Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour) 2278.1

(2,511.15)Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck Exchange Time

2489.22 (2,743.9)

Fuel ConsumptionL/hr (Gal/hr) 143.09 (37.8)Tonnes/L (Tons/gal) 15.92 (66.4)

9Test Results (continued)Productivity and Fuel Results Summaries by StudySegment #2

The 993K was operated in heavier density ore but in the same pit as above by the customers operator. The operator was 6 pass loading Cat 785 Trucks. Material was well shot, free fl owing and very consistent in fracture size. The operator was very effi cient and fl uid in his movements. The loading fl oor was hard packed and fl at.

Cycle Segment Cycle time minutesLoad/Dig 0.158Travel Loaded 0.075Dump 0.12Travel Empty 0.119Total 0.472

Truck LoadingAverage Bucket Payload Tonnes (Tons) 23.2 (25.57)Average Truck Payload Tonnes (Tons) 139.2 (153.44)Truck Exchange Time Minutes 0.66Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour) 2702.87

(2,979.4)Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck Exchange Time

n/a

Fuel ConsumptionL/hr (Gal/hr) 158.61 (41.9)Tonnes/L (Tons/gal) 17.04 (71.1)

10

Productivity and Fuel Results Summaries by StudySegment #3

The 993K was loading crushed ore from a stock pile into Cat 785 Trucks. As before, the loader was being operated by the mines operator. Density of this crushed ore was heavier than earlier segments in the pit. The loading fl oor was hard packed and fl at. Truck exchange was not as good as it was in the pit because of limited access to the loading area by the trucks.

Cycle Segment Cycle time minutesLoad/Dig 0.167Travel Loaded 0.075Dump 0.121Travel Empty 0.103Total 0.466

Truck LoadingAverage Bucket Payload Tonnes (Tons) 24.0 (26.45)Average Truck Payload Tonnes (Tons) 144.0 (158.71)Truck Exchange Time Minutes 2.61Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour) 2015.76 (2,222)Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck Exchange Time

2601.35 (2,867.5)

Fuel ConsumptionL/hr (Gal/hr) 151.04 (39.9)Tonnes/L (Tons/gal) 13.35 (55.7)

Test Results (continued)

11

993K HL Power Stronger into bank and faster lifting than Komatsu.

Better than a 992C, 993K has more power than any other machine he has ran. Cat can dig into a tough wall of hard material when the Komatsu would struggle. Easier to load the bucket off the wall.

Hydraulics and Controllability Faster and easier to load truck than Komatsu. Komatsu is jerky, when going into load a truck, when he hits the de clutch on the Komatsu he gets a hard stop, the Cat does not do that it is very smooth and easy to control.

Operator Information Board Likes how Cat can be confi gured to operator preference and layout of the information clusters. Komatsu information board is at an inconvenient position near the operators right back.

Reliability No question, Cat is more reliable.

Cab Likes Cat visibility and room in the cab and the ability to have a passenger. Diffi cult to train someone on the Komatsu since there is no buddy seat.

Seat Control position on the Cat is great, very comfortable relaxed position. Komatsu control position is very uncomfortable, elbows are positioned too far backward resulting in uncomfortable operating arm position.

Cab Sound Cat sound is very quiet, can have a conversation with passenger and not have to raise voice.

The 993K had the power and weight to get very good fi ll factors in this application. The combination of well shot material and excellent operator resulted in short wheel loader cycle times. Add to this, good truck exchange and the 993K was able to produce between 2278.1 2702.87 tonnes/hr (2,511.15 2,979.4 tons/hr).

This information can be used as a baseline for determining production and fuel consumption for other 993K applications. Keep in mind that each application will have its own conditions that will affect the production and fuel consumption.

Operator Comments

Conclusion

TEXR0154July 2010

www.cat.com

2010 CaterpillarAll Rights Reserved

Printed in U.S.A.

The information contained herein is intended for circulation only to Caterpillar and dealer employees whose duties require knowledge of such reports and is intended exclusively for their information and training. It may contain unverified analysis and facts observed by various Caterpillar or dealer employees. However, effort has been made to provide reliable results regarding any information comparing Caterpillar built and competitive machines. Effort has been made to use the latest available spec sheet and other material in the full understanding that these are subject to change without notice. Any reproduction of this release without the foregoing explanation is prohibited.

CAT, CATERPILLAR, SAFETY.CAT.COM, their respective logos, Caterpillar Yellow and the Power Edge trade dress, as well as corporate and product identity used herein, are trademarks of Caterpillar and may not be used without permission.

Cat 993K vs. Komatsu WA900-3Study PurposeStudy DatesField Data ByLocationWritten ByWeather ConditionsTested UnitsMaterialScale SystemCalibration DateBusiness UnitKey FindingsExecutive SummaryMachine ComparisonTest ProcedureFuel Consumption and MeasurementPayload MeasurementCycle TimesTest ResultsOperator CommentsConclusion